Wikipedia is overall excellent, and it has certainly brought enormous value to me throughout the years. But it is noticeably biased on any topic that has political implications.
Can't wait for the specific examples
25 Years of Wikipedia
71–80 of 498 posts
Re: 25 Years of Wikipedia
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we kill all the platforms where content for training LLMs comes from, what do LLMs train on?
Newspapers, scientific papers and soon, real-world interactions. News is the main feed of new data and that can be an infinite incremental source of new information
You talk about news here like it's some irrefutable ether LLMs can tap into. Also I'd think newspapers and scientific papers cover extremely little of what the average person uses an LLM to search for.
Re: 25 Years of Wikipedia
#73Re: 25 Years of Wikipedia
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wikipedia is literally a spin-off of a porn company. From that point on, where it came from or who founded it is not so important. The question is how it acts today. It is a highly-political organization supporting lot of “progressive” ideas, California-style. So if you like reading politically biased media it may be for you. If you are seeking for a global view you better ask different LLMs for arguments and counter…
Yes LLMs that don't disclose sources are much better.
The LLMs I use all supply references.
Re: 25 Years of Wikipedia
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except for their unnecessarily incessant fund raising. There’s zero reason it should happen that often, and that intrusively.
On Twitter/X "for you" feed, I'm frequently served posts by handles that are openly hostile toward Wikipedia. The most often cited reason is excessive fundraising / bloat (previously it was bias). But in my opinion, whatever bloat the Wikipedia organization suffers from, it is still a better alternative than all the other ad/engagement driven platforms.
For a top-10 Internet website it's not "bloated" at all, if anything it's still running on a shoestring budget. And the fundraising ends up supporting a huge variety of technical improvements and less known "sister" projects that are instrumental in letting the community thrive and be relevant for the foreseeable future. Sure, you could keep the existing content online for a lot less than what they're asking for, but that's not what folks are looking for when they visit the site. Keeping a thriving community going takes a whole lot of effort especially in this day and age, where a vast majority of people just use the Internet for 100% casual entertainment, not productive activity.
Re: 25 Years of Wikipedia
#76[flagged]
How would they go about that?
Re: 25 Years of Wikipedia
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except for their unnecessarily incessant fund raising. There’s zero reason it should happen that often, and that intrusively.
By now they should be sitting on a billion dollars that safely yields a forever self-funding annual income ($30m-$50m) that would pay for all of their necessary expenses. They would no longer require any donations. It's grotesque and wildly irresponsible how they're managing the organization. If LLMs become the center of knowledge resources going forward (which they will), Wikipedia's funding will decline as their tr…
LLM's can't just be "the center of knowledge" on their own, they need to learn and be trained if they are to be useful. A whole lot of LLM knowledge comes from Wikipedia to begin with.
Re: 25 Years of Wikipedia
#78[flagged]
This comment is the first time that I have heard about Grokipedia.
Re: 25 Years of Wikipedia
#79Re: 25 Years of Wikipedia
#80Buried in this mix of 25-year commemoration pages, the release they put out today:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2026/01/15/wikipedia-ce...
Which includes a section about Wikipedia in the age of AI: New partnerships with tech companies support Wikipedia’s sustainability
> several companies — including Ecosia, Microsoft, Mistral AI, Perplexity, Pleias, and ProRata — became new Wikimedia Enterprise partners, joining existing partners such as Amazon, Google, and Meta.